From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces functional after rxvlan off
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:26:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160609232610.GU56933@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160609221745.GT56933@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:17:45PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 04:55:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:02:04PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:31:53AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a vlan interface is
> > > > >> > set up on top of it:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
> > > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0 up
> > > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
> > > > >> > $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
> > > > >> > However, if I do the following:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
> > > > >> > again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's a
> > > > >> > lack of software vlan stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
> > > > >> > work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
> > > > >> > active vlans (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
> > > > >> > interface.
...
> > Okay, so rxvlan is *supposed* to only impact the rx path, right? It's
> > looking like it is actually impacting the tx path too here. I actually
> > *do* see calls to skb_vlan_untag with rxvlan off, if I ping from an
> > external host, so it seems only the packets from the host with rxvlan
> > toggled off aren't escaping correctly for some reason.
>
> And this leads me to believe maybe the bit in the e1000 driver that
> mentions explicitly that the hardware has no support for separate RX/TX
> vlan accel toggling rings true for e1000e as well, and thus both
> NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX and NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_TX need to be kept in
> sync. Testing this theory out shortly...
We have a winner. If I make sure the TX flag gets toggled too, ping
continues to work after disabling rxvlan.
$ ping 192.168.99.91
PING 192.168.99.91 (192.168.99.91) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.591 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.335 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.417 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.91 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.335/0.447/0.591/0.109 ms
$ sudo ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
Actual changes:
rx-vlan-offload: off
tx-vlan-offload: off [requested on]
$ ping 192.168.99.91
PING 192.168.99.91 (192.168.99.91) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.327 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.393 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.424 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.91 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.327/0.381/0.424/0.043 ms
I'll clean things up and submit a patch tonight or tomorrow.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces functional after rxvlan off
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:26:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160609232610.GU56933@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160609221745.GT56933@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:17:45PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 04:55:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:02:04PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:31:53AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a vlan interface is
> > > > >> > set up on top of it:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
> > > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0 up
> > > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
> > > > >> > $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
> > > > >> > However, if I do the following:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
> > > > >> > again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's a
> > > > >> > lack of software vlan stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
> > > > >> > work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
> > > > >> > active vlans (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
> > > > >> > interface.
...
> > Okay, so rxvlan is *supposed* to only impact the rx path, right? It's
> > looking like it is actually impacting the tx path too here. I actually
> > *do* see calls to skb_vlan_untag with rxvlan off, if I ping from an
> > external host, so it seems only the packets from the host with rxvlan
> > toggled off aren't escaping correctly for some reason.
>
> And this leads me to believe maybe the bit in the e1000 driver that
> mentions explicitly that the hardware has no support for separate RX/TX
> vlan accel toggling rings true for e1000e as well, and thus both
> NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX and NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_TX need to be kept in
> sync. Testing this theory out shortly...
We have a winner. If I make sure the TX flag gets toggled too, ping
continues to work after disabling rxvlan.
$ ping 192.168.99.91
PING 192.168.99.91 (192.168.99.91) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.591 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.335 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.417 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.91 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.335/0.447/0.591/0.109 ms
$ sudo ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
Actual changes:
rx-vlan-offload: off
tx-vlan-offload: off [requested on]
$ ping 192.168.99.91
PING 192.168.99.91 (192.168.99.91) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.327 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.393 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.91: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.424 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.91 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.327/0.381/0.424/0.043 ms
I'll clean things up and submit a patch tonight or tomorrow.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-09 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-17 19:03 [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces functional after rxvlan off Jarod Wilson
2016-05-17 19:03 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-05-18 21:39 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher
2016-05-18 21:39 ` Jeff Kirsher
2016-05-27 1:30 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Brown, Aaron F
2016-05-27 1:30 ` Brown, Aaron F
2016-06-01 8:56 ` Ruinskiy, Dima
2016-06-01 8:56 ` Ruinskiy, Dima
2016-06-01 14:31 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-06-01 14:31 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-06-01 19:27 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-01 19:27 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-01 22:31 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-06-01 22:31 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-06-09 18:02 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 18:02 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 20:55 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 20:55 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 22:17 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 22:17 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 23:26 ` Jarod Wilson [this message]
2016-06-09 23:26 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 23:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v2] " Jarod Wilson
2016-06-09 23:50 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-06-16 1:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Brown, Aaron F
2016-06-16 1:08 ` Brown, Aaron F
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160609232610.GU56933@redhat.com \
--to=jarod@redhat.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.